Sandhu v Enterprise Rent-A-Car Ltd

The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against the Employment Appeal Tribunal's dismissal of claims for associative disability discrimination, harassment and unfair dismissal. The Employment Tribunal had found that the primary reason for dismissal was the appellant's refusal to accept a change in reporting lines and related breakdown in working relations, categorised as some other substantial reason (SOSR), not dismissal for the appellant's father’s disability. The ET applied section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to examine reasonableness (including the band of reasonable responses and procedural fairness) and section 26 and section 136 of the Equality Act 2010 in relation to harassment and burden of proof.

The court upheld the ET's factual findings that most impugned acts were trivial or unconnected to the father's disability, that key actors did not know of the disability, and that there were no facts from which to infer a disability-related motive. The ET’s approach to aggregation of incidents and its evaluation of fairness (including the appeal process) were held not to involve errors of law.

Background and parties: The appellant, Ms Sandhu, brought claims in the Employment Tribunal for associative disability discrimination, harassment and unfair dismissal after her dismissal by Enterprise Rent-A-Car Ltd. The ET heard a four-day oral hearing in June/July 2022 and issued a reserved judgment on 4 October 2022 dismissing the claims. The EAT dismissed an appeal. The appellant obtained permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal on a point of law.

Nature of the claim / relief sought: Claims for associative disability discrimination and harassment under the Equality Act 2010 (conduct related to the appellant’s father’s disability) and a claim of unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996. Remedies sought were declarations and remedies arising from successful discrimination/harassment and unfair dismissal claims. The ET had dismissed all claims and that dismissal was upheld by the EAT.

Procedural posture: Employment Tribunal hearing (June/July 2022; reserved judgment 4 October 2022) → Employment Appeal Tribunal (dismissed) → Court of Appeal (this judgment, 3 March 2025).

Issues framed by the court: The ET listed issues grouped around (i) the reason for dismissal (capability or some other substantial reason), and whether a fair capability procedure was followed, and (ii) discrimination/harassment claims based on a series of alleged incidents said to relate to the father’s disability (associative discrimination). Key legal questions included the factual reason for dismissal, whether dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses under s.98 ERA, whether procedural defects made dismissal unfair, and, under the Equality Act 2010, whether proven conduct was unwanted, related to disability and had the prohibited effect, and whether the burden of proof shifted under s.136.

Court’s reasoning and conclusions: The Court of Appeal endorsed the ET’s extensive factual findings (including that the payroll managers complained of long before the father’s diagnosis, repeated 'requires improvement' appraisals and communication/leadership concerns). The ET found no convincing evidence that the actors who engaged in the complained-of conduct (notably two coworkers) knew of the father’s illness, and therefore no factual basis to infer a disability-related motive. The ET applied the two-stage burden approach under s.136: it concluded there were no proven facts from which an inference that conduct related to the father’s disability could be drawn, so the burden did not shift. On unfair dismissal the ET concluded the principal reason was SOSR (refusal to accept new reporting arrangements), that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses, and that although there were procedural imperfections (for example refusal to postpone one meeting), an appeal was conducted fairly and the defects did not render dismissal unfair. The Court of Appeal held that the ET did not err in law in its harassment analysis, that aggregation of trivial incidents by different actors who did not know of the disability did not change the result, and that the ET gave legally adequate reasons concerning sanctions and incremental disciplinary steps.

Appeal dismissed. The Court held that the Employment Tribunal did not err in law in its approach to the harassment and associative discrimination claims and gave adequate reasons on unfair dismissal. The ET’s findings that there were no facts from which to infer that the impugned conduct related to the appellant’s father’s disability, and that the principal reason for dismissal was a refusal to accept a reporting line (a potentially fair SOSR), were not vitiated by legal error. Procedural defects identified did not make the dismissal unfair when the overall process (including an open-minded appeal) was considered.

Employment Tribunal hearing June/July 2022; reserved ET judgment dismissing claims sent 4 October 2022. Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed the appellant's appeal (EAT reference: EA-2022-001179-OO). Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was given by Singh LJ. Court of Appeal judgment: [2025] EWCA Civ 190 (3 March 2025).